They look good. If you dont mind me asking, why not use your 24-105? Also what are your thoughts on the 14 for landscapes? I have 16-35 and wondering if the 14 makes a difference or not.

Straighter lines and better corners. And can you say color? Love the colors from the 14. BUT, skip it, you can't point it anywhere up and down, only dead on something because the converging lines will annoy you.

What you should be considering also is the best WA ever, the TS-E 17mm f4 L.

They look good. If you dont mind me asking, why not use your 24-105? Also what are your thoughts on the 14 for landscapes? I have 16-35 and wondering if the 14 makes a difference or not.

I didn't use the 24-105 simply because I didn't have it with me. The lens was already mounted to the camera and ready to go. I was on my way back to where I was staying after a wedding in Nor Cal and had to get this shot quickly before the sun went away. And it went away fast. I actually don't have much preference between the 24-70 and 24-105 when i'm shooting smaller than f/5.6. The 24-70 is just with me more often when I am traveling light. Though 24-70 has less distortion on the wide end.

It makes a difference if you are feeling you need to be wider. There have been situations where I feel my 14mm it too wide so I switch to my tokina 11-16 and use it as a 16mm prime on the 5d. It is nice to have the option. it is also usually just as easy to step back or step forward to get the framing right when it needs to be a 2mm difference. I love my Bower 14mm. I got it for $480 new from B&H and continue to use it regularly for all my wide FF shots. If you are happy with what your getting from you 16-35mm then stick with it. If you feel you need to get wider than 16mm then the 14mm is a great focal length.

They look good. If you dont mind me asking, why not use your 24-105? Also what are your thoughts on the 14 for landscapes? I have 16-35 and wondering if the 14 makes a difference or not.

Straighter lines and better corners. And can you say color? Love the colors from the 14. BUT, skip it, you can't point it anywhere up and down, only dead on something because the converging lines will annoy you.

What you should be considering also is the best WA ever, the TS-E 17mm f4 L.

I agree with most of that. I actually love my Bower 14mm. It's a great tool to have and is quite decently sharp for the $480 price that I paid for it. But I would also love to have a TS-E 17mm so I could control my verticals better.

canon rumors FORUM

I enjoy threads where people discuss the need for an ultra-wide angle lens. It is almost always when landscape photography is the subject. Attached are three images taken last year at a lake near where I live to illustrate the difference of the three focal lengths that are most commonly discussed; 24, 17, and 14mm. No they're not masterpieces but they do show how the perspective shifts between focal lengths change the importance of the various elements in the image. At 24mm everything already appears twice as far away as it would with a 50mm normal lens. As you step out to 17mm and then 14mm from the same camera position, the foreground becomes more and more dominate in the image while the background becomes less and less distinct. That foreground domination is the reason to use an ultra-wide for some landscape shots; not to attempt to "get it all in" as many people do. If the perspective looks right to you and you need a little more in the image, you need to step back a little, not switch to a wider lens. If you do switch to a wider angle lens, you need to reassess the shot completely to make sure it is still a strong composition.

I enjoy threads where people discuss the need for an ultra-wide angle lens. It is almost always when landscape photography is the subject. Attached are three images taken last year at a lake near where I live to illustrate the difference of the three focal lengths that are most commonly discussed; 24, 17, and 14mm. No they're not masterpieces but they do show how the perspective shifts between focal lengths change the importance of the various elements in the image. At 24mm everything already appears twice as far away as it would with a 50mm normal lens. As you step out to 17mm and then 14mm from the same camera position, the foreground becomes more and more dominate in the image while the background becomes less and less distinct. That foreground domination is the reason to use an ultra-wide for some landscape shots; not to attempt to "get it all in" as many people do. If the perspective looks right to you and you need a little more in the image, you need to step back a little, not switch to a wider lens. If you do switch to a wider angle lens, you need to reassess the shot completely to make sure it is still a strong composition.

JM2C

These are great examples of the different focal lengths and great description!

I enjoy threads where people discuss the need for an ultra-wide angle lens. It is almost always when landscape photography is the subject. Attached are three images taken last year at a lake near where I live to illustrate the difference of the three focal lengths that are most commonly discussed; 24, 17, and 14mm. No they're not masterpieces but they do show how the perspective shifts between focal lengths change the importance of the various elements in the image. At 24mm everything already appears twice as far away as it would with a 50mm normal lens. As you step out to 17mm and then 14mm from the same camera position, the foreground becomes more and more dominate in the image while the background becomes less and less distinct. That foreground domination is the reason to use an ultra-wide for some landscape shots; not to attempt to "get it all in" as many people do. If the perspective looks right to you and you need a little more in the image, you need to step back a little, not switch to a wider lens. If you do switch to a wider angle lens, you need to reassess the shot completely to make sure it is still a strong composition.

JM2C

Well said, Joe. I tend to go out with a 28-70, but often, and this might sound weird, prefer shooting with the limitations of a strait 50 f/1.4. The limitations, in my experience, force you to often reassess your environment as you look for just the right shot, rather than relying so much on the options that your lens may provide. As a result I tend to spend far more time in my composition/location, and far less time "riding the shutter" so to speak. At the very least, can be a fun workout.